Allowed

Jameel Khan v. Hemanth Kumar

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022MFA/8025/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Vehicles First Appeal filed by an injured claimant challenging the compensation award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation by increasing the quantum for travelling expenses, loss of amenities, and loss of future/income due treatment, recalculating based on notional income and revised the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.80,857/- granted, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Jameel Khan Vs Hemanth Kumar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8025 OF 2017 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

JAMEEL KHAN S/O RASHID KHAN AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT #14/1, 1^ST A CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA BENGALURU-560 026.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR D S.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

HEMANTH KUMAR S/O MUNILINGAIAH, MAJOR R/AT 68/69, 5^TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT, MALAGALA, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶11

M/S MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURNACE CO LTD NO.36, H M ASTRID, 2^ND FLOOR, J.C.ROAD MINERVA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI.RAVI.S. SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS NOTICE DISPENSED WITHE VIDE ORDER DATED 12.04.2022)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5884/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER PRINCIPAL MACT

¶15

¶16

AT BANGALORE (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2017 passed in MVC No.5884/2016 on the file of the Member, Prl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶20

It is the case of the appellant that on 20.08.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. when the appellant along with Wajid Khan were proceeding in the Honda Activa bearing Reg. No.KA-02-HV-0104 as rider and pillion rider from Rajagopalanagara towards Hosaguddadahalli on the extreme left side on Sumanhalli Flyover Ring Road and when they reached at Sumanahalli Bridge, at that time suddenly a Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing Reg. No.KA-01-

¶21

¶22

AA-0957 driven by its driver came from Nagarabhavi towards Laggere in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their Honda Activa and also dashed against a Auto Rickshaw and caused accident, due to which they fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident they were shifted to Sri Lakshmi Multi Speciality hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein both of them took first aid-treatment and then shifted to Venlakh hospital, Chamarajpet, Bangalore and there they took treatment as inpatients. They have spent huge amount towards treatment and other expenses.

¶23

Before the accident the appellant-claimant was working as Carpenter and doing Old wood works and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was not able to attend the daily work and lost his income. Hence, the appellant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident.

¶24

¶25

The Insurance company has appeared before

¶26

the tribunal and contested the matter by filing written statement. It contended that the liability, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance Company further contended that the claimant has not proved that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent manner of the offending vehicle.

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for both the

¶28

parties, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,67,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid compensation, the claimant is before this Court for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant

¶31

submitted that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. He

¶32

¶33

further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the respondent No.2 – insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct and adequate. He further submits that there is no ground to enhance the compensation, therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under

¶37

various heads as follows:

¶38

1.	Pain & suffering	Rs.50,000
2.	Loss of future earning on account of disability (8000x12.15x15/100)	Rs.2,16,000
3.	Medical Expenses	Rs.1,18,357/-
4.	Travelling, Conveyance, Attendant charges and other incidental expenses	Rs.5,000/-
5.	Loss of income during the period of treatment (8000x4)	Rs.32,000/-

¶39

¶40

6.	Loss of amenities in life	Rs.20,000/-
7.	Future Medical Expenses	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.4,66,357/-
		Rounded off to
		Rs.4,67,000/-

¶41

Ex.P6 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.7 is the

¶42

Discharge Summary, and Ex.P.8 is the Medical Bills for Rs.1,18,357/-, Ex.P65 is the wound certificate and PWs.3 and 4 are doctors who have supported version of the appellant to prove that the appellant had suffered following injuries:

¶43

1. Punctured wound present over right arm 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep;

¶44

1. Lacerated wound present over the right ankle with bony prominence;

¶45

Multiple (Comminuted) fracture of lower 1/3^rd of right humerous;

¶46

1. Fracture dislocation of the right foot/ankle (Arm bone)

¶47

As per the medical evidence, injury Nos.1 and 2

¶48

are simple in nature and injury Nos.3 and 4 are grievous in nature. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.50,000/-

¶49

¶50

awarded under the head of "Pain & suffering" is correct and does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

¶51

The tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,1,8,357/towards medical expenses. The compensation awarded under this head is correct and does not call for any interference.

¶52

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/under the head 'traveling, conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental expenses', which is found to be on the lower side. The appellant was an inpatient at Venlakh hospital for a period of five days from 20.08.2016 to 24.08.2016 and suffered fracture. Therefore, considering all these aspects, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head 'traveling, conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental expenses'.

¶53

¶54

The Tribunal has awarded compensation for a

¶55

sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. This amount awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side which requires to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The same is enhanced.

¶56

The compensation awarded under the head

¶57

'future medical expenses' is correct which does not call for any interference.

¶58

Further, the accident was occurred in the year

¶59

2016 but the tribunal has considered notional income as Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, the notional income as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has to be considered. Accordingly, Rs.9,500/- per month is taken as notional income of the appellant. Doctors PWs.2 & 3 have stated that the appellant had suffered 15% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has rightly taken 15% disability to the whole body. The appellant was aged 39 years as on the date of the accident. The multiplier

¶60

¶61

applicable to the present case is '15'. Therefore, the loss of

¶62

future income is awarded as under:

¶63

Rs.9,500 X 15/100 x 15 X 12 = Rs.2,56,500/-

¶64

Further, compensation of Rs.32,000/is

¶65

awarded by the tribunal under the head "loss of income during laid up period" for four months, but as stated above, the notional income is taken at Rs.9,500/- per month. Therefore, for four months "loss of income during laid up period" is awarded at Rs.38,000/- (Rs.9,500X4).

¶66

18. Thus in all the appellant is entitled for

¶67

compensation under various heads as follows:

¶68

1.	Pain & suffering	Rs.50,000
2.	Loss of future earning on account of disability	Rs.2,56,500
	(9,500 X 15/100 x 15 X 12)
3.	Medical Expenses	Rs.1,18,357/-
4.	Travelling, Conveyance, Attendant charges and other incidental expenses	Rs.20,000/-
5.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	Rs.38,000/-

¶69

¶70

	(8000x4)
6.	Loss of amenities in life	Rs.40,000/-
7.	Future Medical Expenses	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.5,47,857/-

¶71

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,67,000/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,47,857/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.80,857/- (Rs. 5,47,857/- - Rs. 4,67,000/-). Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.80,857/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶72

20. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

I. The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶75

II. The judgment and award dated 05.08.2017 passed in MVC No.5884/2016 on the file of the Member, Prl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶76

¶77

Bengaluru, is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.80,857/- along with the rate of interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

III. Draw award accordingly.

¶79

IV. No order as to costs.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

Jameel Khan v. Hemanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameel Khan v. Hemanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ankesh Vs Liberty Videocon

Nithyananda Shetty K Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Siddaramu K @ Siddaramaiah K Vs Praveen M N

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Chithamma

Mr. Girish Kumar R G Vs SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Radhamma Vs the Manager